IMPORTANT POINT
Where accused was in possession of marked currency notes against allegation that he demanded and received the amount is res-ipsa-loquitur.

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 10th December, 1997 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The Respondent was, at the relevant time, functioning as the Secretary of Visakhapatnam Post Trust. He was also a Member of the Tender Committee. He was also officiating as the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of Visakhapatam Port Trust. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust had floated a tender, in response to which one M/s Ramesh Chandra & Company had submitted a quotation for Rs. 1,33,84,702.80. The tender of M/s. Ramesh Chandra & Company was the lowest. The complainant one Mr. G. Subrahmanyam was the Manager and General Power of Attorney holder of M/s. Ramesh Chandra & Company. According to the prosecution, on 23rd December, 1991 the Complainant was called to the house of the Respondent. He was there informed that there were many complications in the tender and that in order to clear those complications a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- would have to be paid to the Respondent as bribe. According to the prosecution, the Complainant expressed financial disability in paying the amount and was told by the Respondent that the amount could be paid in 5 installments. According to the prosecution, the Respondent told the Complainant that if the amount was not paid the file would not be cleared. According to the prosecution, on 30th December, 1991, the Complainant again met the Respondent when he was told that at least a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had to be paid as an advance. The said amount of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid on 31st December, 1991 in Hotel Apsara in Visakhapatnam. The Complainant then reported the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation, who laid a trap. The Respondent was caught coming out of the hotel room with marked currency totaling Rs. 10,000/- in a briefcase which was carried by the Respondent.

3. The Respondent was therefore prosecuted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses including the Complainant and one Mr. M. Veerabhadrarao who was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 was an absolutely independent witness who had acted as a Panch witness and who knew neither the Complainant nor the Respondent. P.W.2 had no enmity with either party and it is not even alleged that he was trying to favour either party.

4. On the evidence before him, the Special Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to R.I. for two years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- on each count. The Appeal filed by the Respondent has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned Judgment. The High Court concludes, on the basis of evidence, that by 23rd November, 1991 the file had already been cleared to the knowledge of the Complainant. The High Court concludes that as the file was already cleared the question of doing favour or not doing favour did not arise. The High Court concludes that it was in probable that the Respondent would have demanded Rs. 1,00,000/-. The High Court concludes that the Respondent s version that the money must have been put into his briefcase when he had gone to the toilet was probable. The High Court concludes that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not establish that any demand was made. On this basis the High Court acquits the Respondent even of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. At this stage, it must be mentioned that on a complaint made by the same Complainant, in respect of another incident, another officer of Visakhapatnam Port Trust had also been prosecuted. In that case also the Trial Court had found the Officer guilty but the High Court had acquitted her. This Court, in its Judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. C. Uma Maheswara Rao reported in (2004) 4 SCC 399, set aside the Judgment of the High Court and convicted the accused in that case. While so doing, this Court noticed Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which rea